For many years, I used to give an annual lecture to theology students training to be Anglican priests at Trinity College, Bristol, on “Why I am an atheist.” One perennial response from the students was that “without belief in God, atheists can simply pick and choose which values to accept and which to reject.”
To which I would reply: “Yes, that’s true, though we don’t pick and choose values simply as individuals, or as we might pick and choose a shirt or a car, but rather as part of communities, societies, cultures, histories and traditions, and in accordance with our foundational beliefs.”
However, I would add: “You as believers have to pick and choose your values, too.”
In the past, thousands of witches were burned and millions of people enslaved, because it was believed that God had sanctified such practices. Today, virtually no Christian thinks that. The shift has come about not because God has changed his mind, but because humans have. As societies develop, so moral values change. As social attitudes to slavery and witch-burnings transformed, so Christians came to interpret the Bible differently — which is another way of saying that they chose different values as making more sense within their religious perspective.
Today, some Christians, reading passages in Leviticus and in Paul, think that the Bible justifies the execution of gay people. Others, reading the same Bible differently, celebrate the ordination of gay priests. Similarly with controversies from abortion rights to the treatment of asylum seekers, each side reads the Bible as they wish to fit into their own moral framework. God is not the designer of that framework, but comes to be its justification — and what is true of Christians is true also of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and believers in every other faith.
I was reminded of those students as the row developed last week over British Secretary of State for Justice Shabana Mahmood’s opposition to Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying bill and the former lord chancellor Lord Falconer’s curt dismissal of it.
“As a Muslim, I have an unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life,” Mahmood had told the Times in October, adding: “I don’t think that death is a service that the state should be offering.”
Those sentiments returned to the headlines after a letter she wrote to her constituents, expressing her opposition to the proposed law, was made public.
“I respect ... [the] religious and spiritual reasons why she believes completely in the sanctity of life,” Falconer told Sky News. “But I do not think it should be imposed on everybody else.”
On Friday last week, the British Parliament gave a second reading to Leadbeater’s bill, beginning the process of turning it into law. However, Falconer’s comments, and the debate around them, were directed not simply at this particular debate, but expressed a deeper unease about the role of religion in public life and the boundaries of a secular society.
For many of its advocates, secularism requires religion to be excluded from the public sphere and from political debate. This, ironically, is an understanding of secularism not so different from that of the theology students, though viewed from the opposite end of the telescope. The trainee priests worried about secularism, because they feared religion might lose its public voice, and what Falconer feared, they insisted was true: that their faith determined their moral and political views.
The reality is more complicated. Certainly, the “as a” prefix to an argument (“as a Muslim,” “as a Jew,” “as a woman,” “as a white American,” I believe that ...) is one of the abominations of contemporary politics. Not only does it shut off debate by insisting that one’s identity or faith defines the limits of one’s views, it also suggests that Muslims, Jews, women, white Americans and every other identity group have, or should have, a particular set of values by virtue of their identity, a crass and reactionary sentiment.
Insisting that God mandates particular political and moral views, and so makes them unchallengeable, is equally to close off political debate and to ignore the variety of perspectives within any faith. Yet, as I suggested to my theology students, rather than their faith determining their values and politics, it is often the case that their moral and political outlook shapes how they interpret religious texts or what they imagine to be God’s will. We can see this in the debate over assisted dying itself. Mahmood, a Muslim, opposed the bill, as did many Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus.
However, many believers — possibly the majority according to some polls — disagree, even if they are more likely to oppose the measure than those who are not religious. The same God can speak to many moral perspectives. Mahmood is wrong to suggest that “as a Muslim” she can hold only one view on this or any other debate. Falconer is wrong to suggest that for Mahmood to express her faith-based view in a democratic debate is to “impose it on everyone else.”
Secularism is not a space from which religion must be excluded, but one in which the state neither affirms nor denies any religion, and so one in which no religion is granted privilege over any another, nor over any secular philosophy or ideology. A truly secular Britain would have no established church, no state-funded religious schools and no blasphemy laws.
On Wednesday last week, Labour MP Tahir Ali asked British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to introduce measures “to prohibit desecration of religious texts and targeted vilification of all the prophets of the Abrahamic faiths.”
Starmer’s answer should have been a simple “No. It is not the job of the state in a secular society to enforce respect of religious texts and prophets, whether of the Abrahamic faiths or not.”
Instead, he replied: “We are ... committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia in all its forms,” refusing to take a stand on the issue or to reject outright Ali’s proposal for the reintroduction of blasphemy restrictions.
However, if a truly secular Britain would have no blasphemy laws (nor “offense” laws acting as surrogates for blasphemy laws), it would also have no issue with religious believers expressing their views in the public sphere. We need to defend secular space from religions demanding privileges. We need also to protect freedom of conscience and religious expression from an overzealous secular state.
Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS